 The stall tactics of Illinois’ biggest government-worker union are costing state
taxpayers $35 million to $40 million a month – and that’s in health care costs
alone.
And on March 1, an Illinois appellate court granted the union’s request to drag
things out even longer.
The case involves the contract impasse between the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees and the state of Illinois. In November 2016, the
Illinois Labor Relations Board determined that the parties are at impasse, or
stalemate, and that the governor could implement his last and best offer to the
union. After the impasse ruling, AFSCME officials turned to the courts, seeking
an immediate review of the labor board’s decision in the 1st District Appellate
Court.
The state appealed issues to the 4th District Appellate Court, and ultimately
AFSCME’s appeals in the 1st District were consolidated in the 4th District
Appellate Court case. There, AFSCME asked the court to prevent the labor board’s
decision from going into effect as long as the appeal proceeds. On March 1, the
court granted AFSCME’s motion. Preventing the labor board’s decision from going
into effect means the governor cannot implement his offer while the appeal
continues.
For each month AFSCME’s contract with the state is not in effect, Illinois is
paying an additional $35 million to $40 million – in health coverage alone. Over
the course of the more than 20 months the state has been without a contract,
that’s $700 million to $800 million.
Unfortunately, the appellate court’s March 1 order indicates that it may
ultimately rule against Illinois taxpayers in its final decision. The court has
signaled that it might disagree with the labor board’s determination of the
impasse, despite the fact that the labor board is the authority most
knowledgeable when it comes to AFSCME and its negotiations with the state.
Any decision issued against the state in this case is ultimately one against the
taxpayers.
AFSCME’s demands
Throughout negotiations, AFSCME persisted in its expensive contract demands: pay
increases up to 29 percent, overtime starting after just 37.5 hours in a week,
and platinum-level health care coverage at little cost to state workers.
[to top of second column] |
AFSCME’s demands would cost taxpayers $3 billion in increased wages
and benefits, compared with the state’s offer.
The union made these demands despite the fact that Illinois state
workers are already the highest-paid state workers in the nation
when adjusted for cost of living, and despite the fact that AFSCME
salaries outpace those of Illinoisans working in the private sector.
When the most recent AFSCME contract expired in 2015, the median
AFSCME salary was $63,660 – compared with just under $32,000 for an
Illinois worker in the private sector. In fact, according to the
U.S. Census Bureau, the median income for an individual AFSCME
worker is higher than the median income for an entire Illinois
household in the private sector (just under $60,000 in 2015).
The state’s offer
On the other hand, Gov. Bruce Rauner’s offer to the union is one
that is fair to both taxpayers and state workers.
Rauner’s offer includes a temporary wage freeze, but also provides
incentive bonuses for the more than 35,000 employees covered under
the contract. The state has said employees would be eligible for
merit pay by meeting simple, objective standards, such as not having
unauthorized absences or violating pre-established work rules.
The state’s offer also provides overtime after a typical 40-hour
workweek – as opposed to AFSCME’s demand that overtime kick in after
37.5 hours.
And instead of continuing to provide platinum-level health care
coverage at bronze-level prices, the governor is asking AFSCME
workers to pay 40 percent of their health care premiums – up from
the 23 percent they pay now. This means state taxpayers would
continue subsidizing 60 percent of an AFSCME employee’s health care,
at $11,600 per worker annually – still a significant amount by any
standard.
But AFSCME rejected the governor’s offer – and the 4th District
Appellate Court’s order continues to delay implementation of that
offer.
Click here to respond to the editor about this article
|
